The International Olympic Committee (IOC) flatly rejected a minute of silence at today’s opening ceremony in London to mark the
40th anniversary of the murder of eleven Israeli athletes by Palestinian
terrorists at the 1972 Munich Games.

Why exactly is the IOC opposed to a rather modest attempt to
commemorate the victims of terror? According to Ankie Spitzer, the widow
of Israeli fencing coach Andre Spitzer, who was murdered by the
Palestinian Black September group in 1972, IOC president Jacques Rogge
capitulated to the 46-member bloc of Arab and Muslim countries because
of the threat of Arab countries to boycott participation in the Games.

Spitzer,
who jumpstarted an international campaign to garner a minute of silence
at the London games, reported that Rogge told her that “his hands were
tied” by the influence of the 46-member group.

Her rejoinder to Rogge: “No, my husband’s hands were tied, not yours.”

Spitzer claims that the IOC balked because 21 Arab delegations are
prepared to leave the Games if a public commemoration event took place. Her response to the IOC: “Let them leave if they can’t understand what the Olympics are all about — a connection between people through sport.”

Predictably and unsurprisingly, Jibril Rajoub,
head of the Palestinian Football Federation, praised Rogge’s decision
in a letter, writing “Sports is a bridge for love, connection and
relaying peace between peoples. It should not be a factor for separation
and spreading racism between peoples.”

Meanwhile, in a case of real ICO-sponsored racism and anti-Semitism,
the IOC permitted Lebanon’s Judo team to boycott training alongside the
Israeli team. According to the London-based Jewish Chronicle,
“Olympic officials were forced to erect a special screen at the Excel
venue following a complaint from a member of the Lebanese delegation.”

What is unfolding in London is a mirror-image of the conduct of the
United Nations and its organizations seeking to not hurt the” feelings”
of Muslim-majority countries. In short, mass cowardice prevails over
basic human rights and confronting terrorism.

Moreover, the Obama administration’s ongoing refusal to invite Israel to participate in the U.S.-sponsoredGlobal
Counterterrorism Forum is part and parcel of the soggy indifference
toward Israel’s security interests, this time at the expense of
placating Turkey.

In one of the most insightful commentaries on the failure of left-liberals to tackle pressing human-rights issues, the Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger
neatly captured in his May article a new phenomenon. He wrote that “the
Liberals and Democrats who work on human-rights issues won’t like to
hear this, but with the Obama presidency, human rights has completed its
passage away from the political left, across the center and into its
home mainly on the right — among neoconservatives and evangelical
Christian activists.”

All of this helps to explain why conservatives have played a key role
in the call to remember the murdered Israeli athletes and have
consistently urged the Obama administration to include Israel in its
Global Counterterrorism Forum.

— Benjamin Weinthal is a Berlin-based Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Sophie:

How
outrageous, anti-semitic, sad and cowardly of the IOC! Not only the
refusal to permit a moment of silence to remember the Israeli athletes
killed 40 years ago at the Munich Games, but the capitulation to the
Lebanese team's demand to segregate training facilities.

"They came and they saw us – they didn’t like it and they went to the organisers. They put up some kind of wall between us. Everyone went on and there was no interaction between us."

Would the American team have stayed if whites and blacks were segregated?

Jesse Owens defies Adolf Hitler, Berlin, 1936

Will there emerge an Israeli Jesse Owens, who will stand over the course of history as a symbol of shame to be branded on the IOC, the UK Olympics organisation and each country that remains in the games for as long as this discrimination, despicable demonstration of unsportsmanlike behaviour, appeasement, and surrender are allowed to stand?

Courage:

An African-American, Jesse Owens, man stands up to Hitler in the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin

A white German, Luz Long, befriends and advises Jesse Owens
in front of Hitler and the world. Luz Long was drafted into the army
and killed in Sicily during World War II, but his courage during the
1936 Games earned him admirers around the world...and still does.

In the 1936 Olympics, Luz Long and Jessie Owens directly competed against one another in the long jump competition held in the were direct competitors in the long jump at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin in the Olympiastadion.

Since he had "home field advantage," Long gave Owens some advice. Owens won gold. Long won silver.

Before the entire stadium, including Adolf Hitler, Luz Long embraced Jessie Owens in congratulations on his victory and world record.

Both men became friends and maintained a correspondence for years until the outbreak of hostilities between Germany and the United States made that impossible. Owens continued a relationship with the Long family long after Luz's death in the War.

"It took a lot of courage for him to befriend me in front of Hitler... You can melt down all the medals and cups I have and they wouldn't be a plating on the twenty-four karat friendship that I felt for Luz Long at that moment."

- Jesse Owens

Will we look back on the Games of 2012 with the same sense of utter disgust and revulsion as humanity does at those that Hitler hosted in Berlin in 1936?

Sorry, my fellow Brits, but the Left can "celebrate" the "joys of socialised medicine" until every square millimetre of turf in Merry Old England is covered with big hospital beds, happy nurses, and trampolining, sick children and the scene occupies every television on the planet, but as long as there is a barrier between the Lebanese and Israeli athletes, I will remember these Olympics as a disgrace...yet, another example where my homeland lacked the moral authority and intestinal fortitude to stand up for truth, justice, and fair play.

Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And
take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in
the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist
or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that
she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this
up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding
the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one
against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog
pound than Michael Vick.

I
take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic
party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral
redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They
aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.

Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that
Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile
schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility.
Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay
helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.

Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do
Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy
obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing
and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of
our constitutional republic?

No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs
clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and
trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power,
not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to
power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks
are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive
liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes
with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on
force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.

Armed with the panoply of lawmaking, these moonstruck fools for power
go about in a jealous rage. They fear power’s charms may be lavished
elsewhere, even for a moment.

Democrats hate success. Success could supply the funds for a power
elopement. Fire up the Learjet. Flight plan: Grand Cayman. Democrats
hate failure too. The true American loser laughs at legal monopoly on
force. He’s got his own gun.

Democrats hate productivity, lest production be outsourced to
someplace their beloved power can’t go. And Democrats also hate us
none-too-productive drones in our cubicles or behind the counters of our
service economy jobs. Tax us as hard as they will, we modest earners
don’t generate enough government revenue to dress and adorn the power
that Democrats worship.

Democratic advocacy for feminism, gay marriage, children’s
rights, and “reproductive choice” is simply a way to invade - power’s
little realm of domestic private life and bring it under the domination
of Democrats.

Democrats hate America being a world power because world power gives power to the nation instead of to Democrats.

And Democrats hate the military, of course. Soldiers set a bad
example. Here are men and women who possess what, if they chose, could
be complete control over power. Yet they treat power with honor and
respect. Members of the armed forces fight not to seize power for
themselves but to ensure that power can bestow its favors upon all
Americans.

This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order.
Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the
ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not
hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get
counseling.

P. J. O’Rourke, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, is the author of a new book, Don’t Vote: It Just Encourages the Bastards (Atlantic Monthly Press).

Two weeks from now, the United Church of Canada will assemble in
Ottawa for its 41st General Council, where it will debate church policy
and elect a new moderator. The top item on its agenda is a resolution
calling for a boycott of products from Israeli settlements. Fortunately,
nobody cares what the United Church thinks about Israeli settlements,
or anything else for that matter, because the United Church doesn’t
matter any more.

For many years, the United Church was a pillar of Canadian society.
Its leaders were respected public figures. It was – and remains – the
biggest Protestant denomination in a country that, outside Quebec, has
been largely shaped by centuries of Protestant tradition.

But
today, the church is literally dying. The average age of its members is
65. They believe in many things, but they do not necessarily believe in
God. Some congregations proudly describe themselves as “post-theistic,”
which is a good thing because, as one church elder said, it shows the
church is not “stuck in the past.” Besides, who needs God when you’ve
got Israel to kick around?

The United Church is not alone. All the
secular liberal churches are collapsing. The Episcopalians – the
American equivalent of the United Church – have lost a quarter of their
membership in the past decade. They’re at their lowest point since the
1930s. Not coincidentally, they spent their recent general meeting
affirming the right of the transgendered to become priests. Not that
there’s anything wrong with that. But it doesn’t top most people’s lists
of pressing spiritual or even social issues.

Back in the 1960s,
the liberal churches bet their future on becoming more open, more
inclusive, more egalitarian and more progressive. They figured that was
the way to reach out to a new generation of worshippers. It was a
colossal flop.

“I’ve spent all my ministry in declining
congregations,” says David Ewart, a recently retired United Church
minister who lives in British Columbia. He is deeply discouraged about
the future of his faith. “In my experience, when you put your primary
focus on the world, there is a lessening of the importance of worship
and turning to God.”

The United Church’s high-water mark was 1965,
when membership reached nearly 1.1 million. Since then it has shrunk
nearly 60 per cent. Congregations have shrunk too – but not the church’s
infrastructure or the money needed to maintain it. Today, the church
has too many buildings and too few people to pay for their upkeep. Yet
its leadership seems remarkably unperturbed. “It’s considered wrong to
be concerned about the numbers – too crass, materialistic and
business-oriented,” says Mr. Ewart. The church’s leaders are like the
last of the Marxist-Leninists: still convinced they’re right despite the
fact that the rest of the world has moved on.

Clearly, changes in
society have had an enormous impact on church attendance. Volunteerism
and other civic institutions are also in decline. Busy two-career
families have less discretionary time for everything, including church.
Sundays are for chores and shopping now. As for Sunday school, parents
would rather take the kids to sports.

But something else began
changing in the 1960s, too. The liberal churches decided that
traditional notions of worship were out of date, even embarrassing. They
preferred to emphasize intellect, rationality and understanding. “When I
went to seminary, we never talked about prayer,” says Mr. Ewart. “I had
an intellectual relationship with Jesus. But love Jesus? Not so much.”

As
the United Church found common cause with auto workers, it became
widely known as the NDP at prayer. Social justice was its gospel.
Spiritual fulfilment would be achieved through boycotts and recycling.
Instead of Youth for Christ, it has a group called Youth for
Eco-Justice. Mardi Tindal, the current moderator, recently undertook a
spiritual outreach tour across Canada to urge “the healing of soul,
community and creation” by reducing our carbon footprint. Which raises
the obvious question: If you really, really care about the environment,
why not just join Greenpeace?

According to opinion polls, people’s
overall belief in God hasn’t declined. What’s declined is people’s
participation in religion. With so little spiritual nourishment to
offer, it’s no wonder the liberal churches have collapsed.

It’s
possible that organized religion in the developed world has had its day.
After all, even conservative evangelicals like the Southern Baptists
are in decline. Yet not all faiths have succumbed to Mammon. Mosques are
popping up all over, and in Canada there are probably more kids in
Islamic class than Sunday school. In the United States, Mormonism –
which requires obligatory missionary service and a hefty tithe – is
going strong, despite widespread ridicule from the mainstream press.
Thanks to immigrants, the U.S. Roman Catholic Church also remains
vibrant. Most Jews I know still belong to synagogues, send their kids to
Hebrew school and have them bar mitzvahed.

Should anybody miss
the church? Yes, says Mr. Ewart. The church gave families a way to
participate together in a community larger than themselves, for a
purpose greater than themselves. Most of us don’t have a way to do that
any more. Our kids won’t even have it in their memory bank.

In the
past few years, Mr. Ewart has spent time hanging out with evangelicals –
people who actually talk about loving Jesus. He admires their personal,
emotional connection to God. Lately, he has even started praying.
Perhaps he could pray for the church in which he spent his life to stop
its self-immolation. But it’s probably too late.

27 July 2012

"...the belief that lower wages would raise overall employment rests on a
fallacy of composition. In reality, reducing wages would at best do nothing for
employment; more likely it would actually be contractionary."

- Would cutting the minimum wage raise employment? - New York Times, 16 December 2009

"Stanford University economist Paul Krugman, however, said raising the
minimum wage and lowering barriers to union organization would carry a
trade-off --- increased unemployment."

"Close the weak banks and impose serious capital requirements on the
strong ones...You see, it may sound hard-hearted, but you cannot keep unsound
financial institutions operating simply because they provide jobs. There can be
a huge amount of damage a bad bank can create. There is a cruelty to our market
system, but that cruelty cannot be eliminated. The alternative is fraught with
danger, that of carrying on with the weak banks."

- 1998 interview of Krugman - Business Standard (India)

"Letting Lehman fail-letting the market work, as some people
said-basically brought the entire world capital market down."

"Many on Wall Street are clamoring for a bailout -- for Fannie Mae or the
Federal Reserve or someone to step in and buy mortgage-backed securities from
troubled hedge funds. But that would be like having the taxpayers bail out
Enron or WorldCom when they went bust -- it would be saving bad actors from the
consequences of their misdeeds... Say no to bailouts - but let's help borrowers
work things out."

- Workouts, Not Bailouts - New York Times, 17 August 2007
"The just-announced federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the
giant mortgage lenders, was certainly the right thing to do - and it was done
fairly well, too... So Fannie and Freddie had to be rescued..."

- Is saving our Fannie enough? - Seattle Times, 9 September 2008

Deficits and Interest Rates

"It turns out that there's a strong correlation between budget deficits
and interest rates - namely, when deficits are high, interest rates are low ...
On reflection, it's obvious why..."

- Deficits and interest rates - New York Times, 14 August 2009

"But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates
sky-high. A leading economist recently summed up one reason why: ''When the
government reduces saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate
rises.''

- A fiscal train wreck - New York Times, 11 March 2003

National Debt

"It's a very good deal for those close to retirement who will never see
the taxes that will have to be levied to pay it (the national debt), but it's a
very bad deal for people early in their careers. A 30-year old, if she
understood it, should be pretty upset, because when she hits peak earnings at age
50, she will be paying for spending now through higher taxes then."

--
Paul Krugman, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
commenting on the national debt climbing to the $2 trillion mark, Quote Without Comment - Lakeland Register, 18 October 1985

"And tarnished credibility, along with a much-increased debt, is a problem
that Mr. Bush will pass along to other Congresses, other presidents and other
generations."

- In 2003, Krugman held the same view that debts would affect future generations
when he wrote in his article titled Passing it Along in New York Times on 18 July 2003

"How, then, did America pay down its debt? Actually, it didn't... But the
economy grew, so the ratio of debt to GDP fell, and everything worked out
fiscally... Which brings me to a question a number of people have raised: maybe
we can pay the interest, but what about repaying the principal? ...But why
would we have to do that? Again, the lesson of the 1950s - or, if you like, the
lesson of Belgium and Italy, which brought their debt-GDP ratios down from
early 90s levels - is that you need to stabilize debt, not pay it off; economic
growth will do the rest."

- The burden of debt - New York Times, 28 August 2009

Debt to GDP Ratio

"Dear Alan Greenspan:
...Moreover, since you advocate accrual accounting, you obviously realize that
the ratio of debt to G.D.P. is a highly misleading number."

- On the Second Day, Atlas Waffled - New York Times, 14 February 2003

"I think they're missing the point - if even Italy can handle debt/GDP
ratios of 100 percent, we should be able to do it too."

- A couple of notes on the 40s and 50s - New York Times, 30 August 2009

Impact of Governments on Recessions

"The fact is, all these promises are silly: Administrations don't cause
recession and recoveries--if anyone is in charge of the business cycle, it's
the nonpartisan technocrats at the Federal Reserve."

- Two Cheers For The Welfare State. Sure, It's Got Problems, But Despite
What They Want, The Vast Majority of Americans Would Be Sorry To See It
Go, Fortune, 1 May 1995

"Mr. Obama could have done the same - with, I'd argue, considerably more
justice. He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of
America's economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the
Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush
administration's refusal to regulate the banks."

- What didn't happen - New York Times, 17 January 2010

Sustainability of Social Security

"So by all means, let's have a vigorous national debate about reforming
Social Security; it can't be sustained in its present form."

- Two Cheers For The Welfare State. Sure, It's Got Problems, But Despite
What They Want, The Vast Majority of Americans Would Be Sorry To See It
Go, Fortune, 1 May 1995

"But the privatizers won't take yes for an answer when it comes to the
sustainability of Social Security... Social Security, with its own dedicated
tax, has been run responsibly; the rest of the government has not. So why are
we talking about a Social Security crisis?"

- About the Social Security trust fund - New York Times, 28 March 2008

Investment of Social Security Funds

"The outlines of a plan that would sustain Social Security without
destroying it are clear: Allow the system to invest some of its surplus in
private assets, and close the system's modest long-run financial shortfall by
making minor adjustments to benefits and rescinding part of the recent tax
cut."

- Fabricating a Crisis - New York Times, 21 August 2001

"A few weeks ago I tried to explain the logic of Bush-style Social
Security privatization... you should borrow a lot of money, buy stocks and hope
for capital gains... So people are expected to take a loan from the government
and use it to buy stocks, and if that turns out to have been a mistake -- well,
too bad...Do you believe that we should replace America's most successful government
program with a system in which workers engage in speculation that no financial
adviser would recommend? Do you believe that we should do this even though it
will do nothing to improve the program's finances?"

- Gambling with your Retirement - New York Times, 4 February 2005

Privatisation of Social Security

"None of this says that privatizing Social Security is necessarily a bad
idea."

"Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current system, in whole or
in part, with personal investment accounts - won't do anything to strengthen
the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse."

- Inventing a crisis - New York Times, 7 December 2004

Labour Unions

"The actions of labor unions can have effects similar to those of minimum
wages, leading to structural unemployment."

"Once upon a time, back when America had a strong middle class, it also
had a strong union movement. These two facts were connected."

- State of the Unions - New York Times, 24 December 2007

Globalisation

Lecture: Paul Krugman rankles many when he refuses to blame this nation's woes
on the global economy."Yes, thousands of Americans have lost jobs in some industrial sectors,
Krugman says. But global competition isn't to blame... "A lot of what
people say about these issues is just dead wrong and silly."

"The accelerated pace of globalization means more losers as well as more
winners; workers' fears that they will lose their jobs to Chinese factories and
Indian call centers aren't irrational."

- The Trade Tightrope - New York Times, 27 February 2004

Healthcare

"That means that, while I believe in free trade and have no sympathy with
the sort of liberalism that wants to centralize economic decision-making in
Washington (cases in point: Jimmy Carter's energy planners and Bill Clinton's
health planners)..."

- Two Cheers For The Welfare State. Sure, It's Got Problems, But Despite
What They Want, The Vast Majority of Americans Would Be Sorry To See It
Go, Fortune, 1 May 1995

"True "socialized medicine" would undoubtedly cost less, and a
straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would
probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That's why I and others believe
that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely
important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole
effort."

- The Swiss Menace - New York Times, 16 August 2009

Role of the Government in the Economy

''Nothing Government has done -- for good or evil -- seems to have mattered it's like
using a water pistol to shoot an elephant.''

- Benefit of Dole Tax Plan is Hotly Debated - New York Times, 24 August 1996

"What saved us? The answer, basically, is big government."

- Saved by Big Government - Guardian, 10 August 2009

"Huge" Economic Stimulus of $600 Billion

"All indications are that the new administration will offer a major
stimulus package. My own back-of-the-envelope calculations say that the
package should be huge, on the order of $600 billion."

- Depression Era Economics Returns, New York Times, 14 November 2008

"Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”

- Paul Krugman, This Week with Christine Amanpour, 15 November 2010

“Compare me . . . compare me, uh, with anyone else, and I think you’ll see that my forecasting record is not great.”

Recently
I had a discussion with an old friend who is an ardent George W. Bush
hater and, as a result, will be voting for President Obama again, no matter what.

We were discussing the economy and I happened to mention
that the average unemployment rate was much lower during Bush’s two
terms despite the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, at that moment, I
was not sure of the exact figures. So after a quick search, I found
this handy chart that you can send to your unemployed or
under-unemployed friends or any George W. Bush haters in general and ask
them exactly what part of Bush’s unemployment rate history they still
hate.

They might discover they actually miss President Bush after they read this chartfrom the Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Year

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2001

4.2

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.3

4.5

4.6

4.9

5.0

5.3

5.5

5.7

2002

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.9

5.8

5.8

5.8

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.9

6.0

2003

5.8

5.9

5.9

6.0

6.1

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.1

6.0

5.8

5.7

2004

5.7

5.6

5.8

5.6

5.6

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.4

5.5

5.4

5.4

2005

5.3

5.4

5.2

5.2

5.1

5.0

5.0

4.9

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.9

2006

4.7

4.8

4.7

4.7

4.6

4.6

4.7

4.7

4.5

4.4

4.5

4.4

2007

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.5

4.4

4.6

4.7

4.6

4.7

4.7

4.7

5.0

2008

5.0

4.9

5.1

5.0

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.1

6.1

6.5

6.8

7.3

2009

7.8

8.3

8.7

8.9

9.4

9.5

9.5

9.6

9.8

10.0

9.9

9.9

2010

9.7

9.8

9.8

9.9

9.6

9.4

9.5

9.6

9.5

9.5

9.8

9.4

2011

9.1

9.0

8.9

9.0

9.0

9.1

9.1

9.1

9.0

8.9

8.7

8.5

2012

8.3

8.3

8.2

8.1

8.2

8.2

Here are the key findings from this chart to share with your friends.

When President Bush took office in January, 2001 the unemployment
rate was 4.2%. After the jolt of the September 11,2001 attacks, the highest the unemployment rate rose was 6.3% in June, 2003.

This rate seems remarkably low by today’s economic standards.

Then the economy calmed down and actually grew, dropping the
unemployment rate to the mid 5% range, where it stayed for the next two
years.

In fact, the rate was 5.4% in November, 2004 when Bush was reelected.

Really good news came in December, 2005 when the unemployment rate
dipped to 4.9% and stayed in the 4% range straight through to November,
2007.

Then in December, 2007 it went to 5.0%, rose slowly and really shot
up in August, 2008 to 6.1%. When the economy tanked, the rate blew right
through the 6% range ending December, 2008 at 7.3%.

Rising still in January, 2009 when President Obama took office, the rate was 7.8%.

It saw a high of 10% in October, 2009 and now in July, 2012 the rate
has come down to 8.2% where it seems to be stuck in what I call, “the
new normal” for this president.

The takeaway here is the highest unemployment rate during President
Bush’s entire eight years in office was his last at 7.8%, compared to
President Obama’s low of 8.1%.

It is ironic how Obama still loves to blame the “economy he
inherited” from Bush, when at this point in the presidential election
campaign, Obama would love to have the 7.8% unemployment rate he did in fact inherit from Bush in January, 2009 or better yet the 6.8% from November, 2008 when he was elected.

As a follow up, I will email this chart to my dear old friend from
college and look forward to some of his snarky comments in return. But
since he lives in California, his vote for Obama will not affect the
election outcome. It’s my Bush hating friends in Ohio and Virginia I really need to work on. And if you have some as well, please forward them this chart.

My mama told me when I was young
We are all born superstars
She rolled my hair and put my lipstick on
In the glass of her boudoir

"There's nothing wrong with loving who you are"
She said, "'Cause he made you perfect, babe"
"So hold your head up girl and you'll go far,
Listen to me when I say"

I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way
Don't hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

"But, if
you're a feminist or a gay or any of the other house pets in the
Democratic menagerie, you might want to look at Rahm Emanuel's
pirouette, and Menino's coziness with Islamic homophobia. These guys are
about power, and right now your cause happens to coincide with their
political advantage. But political winds shift. Once upon a time,
Massachusetts burned witches. Now it grills chicken-sandwich homophobes.
One day it'll be something else. Already in Europe, in previously
gay-friendly cities like Amsterdam, demographically surging Muslim
populations have muted Leftie politicians' commitment to gay rights,
feminism and much else. It's easy to cheer on the thugs when they're
thuggish in your name. What happens when Emanuel's political needs
change?"

By Mark Steyn

To modify Lord Acton, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts
absolutely, but aldermanic power corrupts all der more manically. Proco
"Joe" Moreno is Alderman of the First Ward of Chicago, and last week, in
a city with an Aurora-size body count every weekend, his priority was
to take the municipal tire-iron to the owners of a chain of fast-food
restaurants. "Because of this man's ignorance," said Alderman Moreno, "I
will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the
First Ward."

"This man's ignorance"? You mean, of the City of Chicago permit
process? Zoning regulations? Health and safety ordinances? No, Alderman
Moreno means "this man's ignorance" of the approved position on same-sex
marriage. "This man" is Dan Cathy, president of Chick-fil-A, and a few
days earlier he had remarked that "we are very much supportive of the
family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a
family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our
first wives" – which last part suggests he is as antipathetic to
no-fault divorce and other heterosexual assaults on matrimony as he is
to more recent novelties such as gay marriage. But no matter. Alderman
Moreno does not allege that Chick-fil-A discriminates in its hiring
practices or in its customer service. Nor does he argue that business
owners should not be entitled to hold opinions: The Muppets, for
example, have reacted to Mr. Cathy's observations by announcing that
they're severing all ties with Chick-fil-A. Did you know that the Muppet
Corporation has a position on gay marriage? Well, they do. But Miss
Piggy and the Swedish Chef would be permitted to open a business in the
First Ward of Chicago because their opinion on gay marriage happens to
coincide with Alderman Moreno's. It's his ward, you just live in it.
When it comes to lunch options, he's the chicken supremo, and don't you
forget it.

Chick-fil-A,
whose founder distinguished the fast-food chain by closing on Sunday
out of religious piety, continues to mix theology with business and
finds itself on the front lines of the nation's culture wars after its
president, Dan Cathy, confirmed his opposition to gay marriage in June
2012.

The city's mayor, Rahm Emanuel, agrees with the Alderman: Chick-fil-A
does not represent "Chicago values" – which is true if by "Chicago
values" you mean machine politics, AIDS-conspiracy-peddling pastors and
industrial-scale black youth homicide rates. But, before he was mayor,
Rahm Emanuel was President Obama's chief of staff. Until the president's
recent "evolution," the Obama administration held the same position on
gay marriage as Chick-fil-A. Would Alderman Moreno have denied Barack
Obama the right to open a chicken restaurant in the First Ward? Did Rahm
Emanuel quit the Obama administration on principle? Don't be
ridiculous. Mayor Emanuel is a former ballet dancer, and when it's
politically necessary he can twirl on a dime.

Meanwhile, fellow mayor Tom Menino announced that Chick-fil-A would
not be opening in his burg anytime soon. "If they need licenses in the
city, it will be very difficult," said His Honor. If you've just
wandered in in the middle of the column, this guy Menino isn't the mayor
of Soviet Novosibirsk or Kampong Cham under the Khmer Rouge, but of
Boston, Mass. Nevertheless, he shares the commissars' view that in order
to operate even a modest and politically inconsequential business it is
necessary to demonstrate that one is in full ideological compliance
with party orthodoxy. "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's
Freedom Trail," Mayor Menino thundered in his letter to Mr. Cathy, "and
no place for your company alongside it." No, sir. On Boston's Freedom
Trail, you're free to march in ideological lockstep with the city
authorities – or else. Hard as it is to believe, there was a time when
Massachusetts was a beacon of liberty: the shot heard round the world,
and all that. Now it fires Bureau of Compliance permit-rejection letters
round the world.

Mayor Menino subsequently backed down and claimed the severed
rooster's head left in Mr. Cathy's bed was all just a misunderstanding.
Yet, when it comes to fighting homophobia on Boston's Freedom Trail, His
Honor is highly selective. As the Boston Herald's Michael Graham
pointed out, Menino is happy to hand out municipal licenses to groups
whose most prominent figures call for gays to be put to death. The mayor
couldn't have been more accommodating (including giving them $1.8
million of municipal land) of the new mosque of the Islamic Society of
Boston, whose IRS returns listed as one of their seven trustees Yusuf
al-Qaradawi. Like President Obama, Imam Qaradawi's position on gays is
in a state of "evolution": He can't decide whether to burn them or toss
'em off a cliff. "Some say we should throw them from a high place," he
told Al-Jazeera. "Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is
disagreement ... . The important thing is to treat this act as a crime."
Unlike the deplorable Mr. Cathy, Imam Qaradawi is admirably
open-minded: There are so many ways to kill homosexuals, why restrict
yourself to just one? In Mayor Menino's Boston, if you take the same
view of marriage as President Obama did from 2009 to 2012, he'll run
your homophobic ass out of town. But, if you want to toss those godless
sodomites off the John Hancock Tower, he'll officiate at your
ribbon-cutting ceremony.

This inconsistency is very telling. The forces of "tolerance" and
"diversity" are ever more intolerant of anything less than total
ideological homogeneity. Earlier this year, the Susan G. Komen
Foundation – the group that gave us those pink "awareness raising"
ribbons for breast cancer – decided to end its funding of Planned
Parenthood on the grounds that, whatever its other charms, Planned
Parenthood has nothing to do with curing breast cancer. Within hours,
the Komen Foundation's Nancy Brinker had been jumped by her fellow
liberals and was strapped to a chair under a light bulb in the basement
with her head clamped between two mammogram plates until she recanted. A
few weeks back, Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor who "says he's
never voted for a Republican presidential candidate," published a paper
in the journal Social Science Research whose findings, alas, did not
conform to the party line on gay parenting. Immediately, the party of
science set about ending his career, demanding that he be investigated
for "scientific misconduct" and calling on mainstream TV and radio
networks to ban him from their airwaves.

As an exercise in sheer political muscle, it's impressive. But, if
you're a feminist or a gay or any of the other house pets in the
Democratic menagerie, you might want to look at Rahm Emanuel's
pirouette, and Menino's coziness with Islamic homophobia. These guys are
about power, and right now your cause happens to coincide with their
political advantage. But political winds shift. Once upon a time,
Massachusetts burned witches. Now it grills chicken-sandwich homophobes.
One day it'll be something else. Already in Europe, in previously
gay-friendly cities like Amsterdam, demographically surging Muslim
populations have muted Leftie politicians' commitment to gay rights,
feminism and much else. It's easy to cheer on the thugs when they're
thuggish in your name. What happens when Emanuel's political needs
change?

Americans talk more about liberty than citizens of other Western
nations, but, underneath the rhetorical swagger, liberty bleeds. When
Mayor Menino and Alderman Moreno openly threaten to deny business
licenses because of ideological apostasy, they're declaring their
unfitness for public office. It's not about marriage, it's not about
gays, it's about a basic understanding that a free society requires a
decent respect for a wide range of opinion without penalty by the state.
In Menino's Boston, the Freedom Trail is heavy on the Trail, way too
light on the Freedom.

[Intro:]
It doesn't matter if you love him, or capital H-I-M
Just put your paws up
'cause you were born this way, baby

[Verse:]
My mama told me when I was young
We are all born superstars
She rolled my hair and put my lipstick on
In the glass of her boudoir

"There's nothing wrong with loving who you are"
She said, "'Cause he made you perfect, babe"
"So hold your head up girl and you'll go far,
Listen to me when I say"

[Chorus:]
I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way
Don't hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

[Post-chorus:]
Oh there ain't no other way
Baby I was born this way
Baby I was born this way
Oh there ain't no other way
Baby I was born this way
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

Don't be a drag ‒ just be a queen [x3]
Don't be!

[Verse:]
Give yourself prudence
And love your friends
Subway kid, rejoice your truth
In the religion of the insecure
I must be myself, respect my youth

A different lover is not a sin
Believe capital H-I-M (Hey hey hey)
I love my life I love this record and
Mi amore vole fe yah (Love needs faith)

[Repeat chorus + post-chorus]

[Bridge:]
Don't be a drag, just be a queen
Whether you're broke or evergreen
You're black, white, beige, chola descent
You're Lebanese, you're orient
Whether life's disabilities
Left you outcast, bullied, or teased
Rejoice and love yourself today
'cause baby you were born this way

No matter gay, straight, or bi,
Lesbian, transgendered life,
I'm on the right track baby,
I was born to survive.
No matter black, white or beige
Chola or orient made,
I'm on the right track baby,
I was born to be brave.

[Repeat chorus + post-chorus]

[Outro/refrain:]
I was born this way hey!
I was born this way hey!
I'm on the right track baby
I was born this way hey!
I was born this way hey!
I was born this way hey!
I'm on the right track baby
I was born this way hey!

[Fade away:]
Same DNA, but born this way.
Same DNA, but born this way.